Manage Project Context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a durable local index, enrichment and import do not re-analyze media, records are caller-approved, and it warns against including secrets or unrelated customer data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a short safety note, front-loaded with the action list and the core resource. It is dense but each sentence contributes: the first states scope, the second explains enrichment behavior and limits, and the third is a concise security caveat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five actions, nested record and evidence schemas, and an output schema, the description provides a solid high-level map of what the tool does and what data it handles. It omits some operational context (e.g., whether an active Premiere project must be open), but the output schema and rich input schema fill most gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds only marginal semantic value by mentioning the kinds of data (transcripts, speaker labels, shots, audio observations, notes, frame references) and that imports are caller-approved, but it does not explain parameter interactions or revision guards beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it manages a durable local Premiere project-context index and enumerates the five actions (capture, enrich, import_evidence, status, clear). This clearly distinguishes it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_project_context or create_context_edit_plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what each action does (e.g., capture stores metadata, enrich adds transcripts) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternative tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or when to prefer this over sibling context tools such as search_project_context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.